February 15, 2006

That's the WaPo's description of Robert H. Michel, a former House Republican leader who is a "longtime friend" of Dick Cheney's. But is it mystifying? It's not as though Cheney has committed some wrong in his public capacity that affects the public and implies the need for an apology directed at us.

"I guess he's so measured with what he does say personally, but boy, I'd think on something of this nature, you'd let your feelings [be] known," Michel said.

In general, Michel said, Cheney has "enclosed" his personal feelings so tightly to avoid showing them in public. "I guess that discipline upon himself is probably the thing that holds him back." Cheney, he added, is virtually immune to public criticism and image problems: "I don't think he really cares."

Doesn't care that he shot a man in the face? No, Michel didn't say that. He said Cheney doesn't care if people criticize him. The suggestion is only that there's a political need to go on TV and emote so that people see you're not a machine. TV demands emotion. Tell us how you feel, reporters demand of people in pain, who often enough snap back "How do you think I feel?" Cheney accidentally shot an old man. How do you think he feels? Why do you need him to go on television and say what you already know? Because it would be so weird and awkward for gruff old Dick to do that?

That disregard for public approval, though, can become a problem for the White House, according to veteran presidential aides from both parties. "When the vice president is immune to politics and tone-deaf to politics, as Vice President Cheney has shown himself to be at various stages along the way, then his perspective on this kind of situation isn't as sharp," said Ronald A. Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore.

Well, we're not so immune and tone-deaf that we're going to care what Gore's chief of staff has to say on the subject! How many "veteran presidential aides from both parties" did you talk to anyway?

Despite a string of political embarrassments linked to Cheney, including not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the indictment of the vice president's chief of staff in the CIA leak case and now the shooting, he remains a powerful force inside the White House.

A testament to his power is the deference Bush showed Cheney in the handling of last weekend's shooting episode. White House aides said Bush has not pressured Cheney to disclose more details about the shooting or to apologize.

One person close to both men said that Bush is the only person in the White House who could persuade Cheney to change strategy and that even high-level White House aides are reluctant to take on the vice president's office. That left White House press secretary Scott McClellan to be battered by reporters on national television.

"This is one of the challenges of having a high-profile, very powerful vice president inside the White House," said Klain, who added: "The disadvantage is when something negative happens involving the vice president, it is much harder for the White House staff to step in and exert control."

More from Klain! I love the effort to drag Bush into this for not "pressuring" Dick Cheney, to connect this story to the Iraq war, and to make it sound ominous that Cheney is "a powerful force inside the White House."

David Ignatius argues today in the Washinton Post that the delay in reporting the story is another example of the "arrogence of power" in the White House.

I think the Washington Press Corps has behaved badly on this story and they know it. This is why Ignatius and others are trying to spin the story into something else. Complaining about a 16 hour delay on a story that has no effect on the national life other than being of tabloid interest is pure babyishness and nothing more. Further the Press Corps seems pissed that the story was reported by Texas media sources first. The Washington Press Corps has egg on their face... Ignatius is trying to change the subject because he knows his colleagues have behaved like babies.

This is another example about how Bush is an adult and the media and democrats are children. The American are reminded of this day in and day out.

The ranch hostess/chief witness Katharine Armstrong first told us that she and her mother made the decision to go public of their own “volition, ” as she put, on Sunday morning, leading to the now-famous phone call to the Corpus Christi newsroom. Later she said that she had run the idea past Cheney on Sunday morning and he approved it, or at least said it was up to her.

Now the official narrative is that he discussed it with her Saturday night and they directed the disclosure “together.”

Note in all this: no mention of the president. What we seem to know for certain is that his press secretary was not told about Cheney’s role until 6 a.m. on Sunday.

In other words, if we accept the White House version of events, Bush was informed about 8 p.m. Saturday—and did not inform his press secretary until the next morning, did not talk to his vice president, in fact, did not seem to have any input on telling or holding the story.

So why isn’t Bush getting hammered for that? Why is so much of the focus on Cheney? The president of the United States, in this version, heard about his veep shooting a man in the face and chest and did not direct him or anyone else to report this to the nation? In fact, based on her original quotes, we might assume that we would have never heard about it at all if Katharine Armstrong had not tipped off the local reporter.

So, at a minimum, accepting Bush’s story at face value, he should be sharing blame on the 18 ½ hour gap, or even taking the lion's share, since he is, supposedly, the man in charge.

and

Space prevents me from printing the entirety of Scott McClellan’s press briefing on Monday. But if you read it (at www.whitehouse.gov) you may be amazed to count the number of times he is asked about when Bush was told about Cheney’s trigger-happy role. Over and over McClellan obfuscates, stating that much information developed "overnight," arrived at the White House during the wee hours—he mentions 3 a.m., for example. Typical exchange:

"When did the President know that the Vice President was the shooter? What time? "

"Again, there was additional information coming in that night. And the details continued to come in throughout the morning, into the Sunday morning time period."

It’s clear, to me at least, that he is trying to filibuster and hope the reporters let go of that, and accept his very, very, vague timeline. At other points he seems on the verge of admitting that this news only arrived in the middle of the night.

Finally, when the questions keep coming, he states--sort of--that, yes, the president was told Saturday evening, though even then he does not mention a time, which surely should have been in the front of his mind when he stepped out to attend this key briefing. This was nearly two days after the shooting and the White House still didn’t have its facts straight.

One DDP, Dumb Dem Pundit from the emasculated Left, figured Cheney would be forced to resign over this hunting accident that was not brought to the immediate attention of the Whitehouse press corps. He ain't the weeping type, that's for sure. Now if he knocked a feeble grandmother down the steps in his rush to a luncheon, he should up and blubber and rub ashes on his balding pate. For most Americans, shooting a lawyer in the face is no reason at all to express any remorse unless the act was proven to be intentional.

Ann, I agree about the idiocy of the media's obsession with "feelings", but it is dumb for people in politics to disregard the impression they make on voters, as you've mentioned once or twice w/r/t the Tourette's kids over at Kos. It's not real life; it's politics.

This is as much a private matter as Clinton's philandering (though I'd say carelessness with guns is dumber than carlessness with one's willie), and it's just as ridiculous for it to be a huge story, but that's public life, and both of these guys chose it.

Jack Straw - "Arrogant and smug", you say? Boy, I bet you must hate people like that.

Sloanasaurus - Do they think it would be better for the country if the guy dies? Isn't it a bit early in the morning for rhetorical questions?

quxxo - I've found that when left wingers call something "troubling", it's a polite warning that they're about to descend into self-parody.

*Actually, I'd prefer that this whole incident were treated seriously, but I'm not even sure what that means anymore, what with all this emoting in the public realm. How would a serious person handle this? I wonder what I would do in this circumstance. I'd like to think I'd speak directly to the public, but what if in speaking in turns into managing and spin, and how serious is that?

Here is a question: Do you think it will be better for the country if the wounded man dies?

I personally do not. But I'll wager there are Republicans and Democrats who would use it to their advantage: Republicans to divert news away from more important things about which they're doing little (Iran, Torture, Deficits) and Democrats to disguise the fact that they offer no substantive, clearly defined, other path.

Do you wonder how the Sherriff department that didn't speak to Cheney until the next day was able to ascertain there was no alcohol involved?

As Modo says, "Private citizens have been enlisted to blame the victim. Maybe poor Mr. Whittington put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. But he was, after all, behind Vice, not in front of him. And the hunter pulling the trigger is supposed to make sure he has a clear shot. Wouldn't it be, well, classy for Shooter to express just a bit of contrition and humility?"

Ann, you don't really sound like a moderate that is mildy curious about what happened and what this could mean. You sound more like you are trying to diminish the story and keep it from growing....

Are you still saying that on Wednesday, four to five days later, there is no reason for Cheney to make any sort of public statement?

"It's not as though Cheney has committed some wrong in his public capacity that affects the public and implies the need for an apology directed at us."

Funny, but that line of reasoning didn't work for Bill Clinton . . .

This Cheney story is creepy and weird. 1) The police didn't come to investigate until 14 hours after the incident happened. That's fishy to me, and indicative of unhealthy deference. 2) A veteran hunter like Cheney should know that this is his responsibility. 3) It was the owner of the branch, and nobody in the government, who first went public with this information, and 4) it should be blatantly obvious at this point that nobody, not even President Bush, can bring Cheney to heel. And that's a little scary to me.

Does anybody in America hate their job more than Scott McClellan right now? That guy gets his ass kicked every day.

Then again, having your ass kicked is better than being shot in the face and getting a pellet lodged in your heart.

The press demanding that Cheney come on TV to apologize is purely BS. For some reason they feel like he needs to come apologize to them. There is only one person Cheney needs to apologize too... and thats the man he shot. That is something that should be done in private, and hopefully he has done that already.

Folks here have complained about my use of links, the length of some of my posts, my quoting of others, my pseudonymity, the fact I did not have a blog. Folks wonder why I post in response to Ann and others when I get such a harsh response. Folks have suggested that I not come back.

VDspurs gets upset if I even quote her. But she provides such lardy and pretentious quotes that it is hard not to!

Folks here rarely complain about the facts or the substance of the posts and quotes that I present.

Funny that. I am not sure what that means, truly, what is your take on that?

I gotta tell you--why do I think them the Democrats would LOVE it if Mr. Whittington died--And already we are getting our resident troll to trot out the Kossack conspiracy theories--

Dick Cheney will go on being vice president, he wont be impeached, he wont apologize to the press, he will continue to treat them like the slimeballs they are, Helen Thomas will never get a chance to ask a question at a press conference, the magnetic poles will not shift, the sun will continue to rise in the east, and Mr. Whittington will make a full recovery, and this story will be history in 10 days. Sorry Quxxo--but you sound exactly the moonbats on the right that kept talking about the Vincent Foster suicide--except in your case, there is no corpse.

The faux feeling of concern for Mr. W who took a 3/4 ounce load of 7 and a halfs seems a bit contrived IMHO--

Quxxo--I hate to break this to you, but nobody cares about the links you post or your opinions--you are nothing more than a foil on this board and keep a discussion going, probably engendering more hits for our host, and I suspect most people here think you are in serious need of professional help--there: does that make you feel better?

P. Froward: "I've found that when left wingers call something "troubling", it's a polite warning that they're about to descend into self-parody."

I rely on "troubling" in a post later this morning. I knew what I was doing and that it was Dascle-esque, but I did it anyway.

Quxxo: This is a post specifically about the demand that Cheney express his feelings to the people. I've chosen this topic because it interests me as an aspect of American culture and politics.

The actual political fate of Dick Cheney is a matter of little interest to me. If there is enough pressure on him, though, I hope he steps down, and that Bush makes Condi Rice Vice President, which would put her in a perfect position to run for President.

1. Cheney's friend is requisitioned to be shot at by Cheney in a hunting accident.2. Cheney is beside himself about the accident and decides to step down for personal reasons.3. Bush names Condi Rice, thus giving her the edge in the 2008 Republican Primary.

It's fun to think about, but its not true. Condi Rice does not want to be president.

I've chosen this topic because it interests me as an aspect of American culture and politics.

Well, there's a big snowstorm imminent. Maybe he can pull a Muskie -- although that's probably not the right metaphor, as Muskie never recovered from that snow job;I doubt this will do much to alter opinions of Cheney.

I appreciate that "the public" likes their politicians to humble themselves sometimes -- and this is probably one of those times that Cheney should. But admitting blame and accepting responsibility runs counter to everything in the present administration.

Seeing humility would be nice, as it could signal a change in thinking. This is probably a false hope -- thinking at the White House is not going to change, and the country is going to keep heading in a (IMO) wrong direction.

I think quoxxo is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this, but come on..."Birdie McBlasty" is hilarious! I seriously hope people start calling Cheney that. I mean, the dichotomy between the name and the man is just too much.

Anyway, glad to see that Hillary Clinton has reformed her ways, what with the THIRTY hour delay in reporting Vince Foster's(WH counsel) SUICIDE in '93. I'm really glad that she now sees the error in those things and isn't just posturing for political purposes. Or something.

Cheney will be on with Brit Hume this evening, meanwhile Dana Milbank will again appear as a clown on MSNBC and David Gregory will be on "Imus in the Morning" patting himself on the back. In other news Hillary (Rose Law Firm billing records, Healthcare task force) Clinton decries the White House for secrecy.

Frankly, if Cheney had immediately made a public announcement and apologized it would have made no difference whatsoever. The attacks would have been from a different starting point, but would have happened anyway.

The Koz Kidz are running wild speculating on this. Conspiracy theories are spawning everywhere. It's the left's version of the Cartoon Jihad. The speculation that the shot was from closer than 30 yards started over there yesterday. Some people claiming to have vast bird-hunting experience rather obviously had no freaking clue what they were talking about.

On the notion that it was an accident, so not a big deal, well Chappaquidick was an accident. Now sure, Cheney wasn't boning Whittington to our knowledge, but the other elements of the story, the flaky accident, the alcohol, the bogus-seeming story, the possible collusive coverup enlisting outside help, all these elements are in place. In fact there are added twists in that government employees, doctors and secret service were on the scene and are being used to push this obviously bogus cover story. So to say it's not a big story is to indulge in wishful thinking, but also to kind of finger yourself as a partisan who will kind of say anything regardless of actual truth or reasonability, to promote your partisan agenda...

I have to wonder about people who are such drippy partisan creeps that they are pre-emptively shaking with rage at the Democrats for 'rooting for' the death of Whittington, because presumably it's what they would do if the shoe was on the other foot.

"Here is a question: Do you think it will be better for the country if the wounded man dies?"

In some regards yes, it would be better for the country. A manslaughter charge would guarantee that his days of destroying the amaerican dream of so many would be oover. Funny though, after 5 draft deferments and sending hundreds of thousand of soldiers to war, Cheney finally gets to know what it feels like to shoot somebody.

Why is this an issue for the public domain? Why isn't this just an issue between Cheney and Whittington? Or maybe, if you want to triangulate, between Cheney and Whittington and Armstrong? Since Whittington's health is TBD, and more charges can still be filed, wouldn't it be in the VP's best interest to remain silent for the moment?

I know that we-the-public think that we "own" our politicians (just as we do our movie stars), and that we are entitled to ownership in every one of their actions, and every one of their thoughts. But why is that true?

Ann: Where do you think that such ownership ends? Where should it end? How many straws does the public own, in the bundle that is the professional and personal life of a politician?

He said Cheney doesn't care if people criticize him. The suggestion is only that there's a political need to go on TV and emote so that people see you're not a machine.

I can't imagine how Cheney going on TV will actually help him or the administration in any way. Cheney's public demeanor is generally level, deadpan, and . . . ever-so-slightly sinister. Which is why I am a fan. And now he shot a man. In the face.

Even if it's an accident and we all know it's an accident, having the VP come out and leer at the public in his wonderful way is not going to help the "This was an accident, nothing more" narrative. It's going to bolster the whole "This man is a stone cold killer" narrative instead. Which does not help the administration or Cheney.

I mean, as long as the victim pulls through, I think this is just one more blackly humorous news item from a presidency that has been full of them.

It's an issue for the public because the currently-elected Vice President shot a man in the face who is now in the ICU. Public employees were on hand and assisted with the emergency care. And the VP is using the government's press liason to push a transparently bogus cover story. What does all this say about this man's respect for rule of law? Isn't this a nice illustration of the lying and corruption that are SOP for Dick Cheney?

questionmark,This accident is not on the same level as Chappaquiddick. Did Dick Chenney leave Mr. Whittington to bleed to death like Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown? If you can't distinguish the two incidents then maybe you are the partisan tool.

"Here is a question: Do you think it will be better for the country if the wounded man dies?"

When I read the above posted in the comments section I thought it a macabre sort of question. Then I read that the White House press secretary was asked by 'reporter' "Would this be much more serious if the man had died?"

To pose the question whether it would be better for the country is Mr. Whittington dies is...words fail me. And to presume that Democrats are hoping for that outcome is as indescribable. Do rightwing partisans have no limits? Disgusting.

Cheney's hunting accident isn't personal secret which makes him vulnerable to blackmail or about which he has lied under oath. I happen to agree that too much was made of Clinton's escapades, but it's a goofy comparison.

This also doesn't call Cheney's judgment into question in the same way Clinton's choices did. Even if it was an avoidable accident (as the hunting "experts" would have us believe), it was a split-second decision. Not exactly a "pattern of behavior".

Ah! I was going to say, quxxo, that Birdie McBlasty is really funny and say it was the first thing you've ever come up with that was. So you didn't come up with it. The world makes sense again.

hoosthere - is that true, about the 30-hour Vincent Foster delay? Was there press outrage at the time? or was there some conservative outrage that was reluctantly covered as weird conservative outrage?

quxxo again: he was using 7-1/2 size bird shot, slightly larger than half thesize of a typical bb, according to a gun site I went to. A newspaper article said it's roughly the size of a small o in newspaper type.

I don't think the idea that the wounds must have been much worse than described for the pellet to get to his heart has any legs. The reporting from the medical team just seems too straightforward and bland with the exception of the guy you cite, who I believe has his shot size facts wrong.

"...To pose the question whether it would be better for the country is Mr. Whittington dies is...words fail me. And to presume that Democrats are hoping for that outcome is as indescribable..."

I think it is a fair question. The question does not ask if someone hopes that Mr. Whittington dies...that would be an unfair question. The question is searching out a level of partisanship. Is it worth it to someone to see the country go through a period of extreme discontent just to see Mr. Cheney ousted from the Vice Presidency? Many of us conservatives opposed the impeachment of Clinton for this very reason.

I kinda see what you mean; but read Kos and sense the eagerness behind the expressions of sympathy. It just is my beeif born of expereince that the Kos and DU scene contains many who would be thrilled if he died.

Just as there are many who are thrilled Iraq isn't going as well as it might.

I did run across a comment there yesterday, someone saying he has no sympathy for the guy because of who he is and all that. Responded to by someone saying it's the same feeling he has when he sees a crashed car with a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. "If that means I'm going to hell, so be it."

So the question isn't whether it exists, this emotion; it's how widespread it is. And for most of us here, that kind of rage seems to characterize the left. This is just one more aspect of it.

Quoth Quxxo:Folks here rarely complain about the facts or the substance of the posts and quotes that I present.

Funny that. I am not sure what that means, truly, what is your take on that?

I've seen a plenty of attempts to engage you factually, in fact. I imagine that the reason that there aren't more is that people tend to ignore your posts-- I know that I do. You're a classic troll, and those of us who are are interested in building an online community tend to ignore trolls.A damned shame really, since there does seem to be some kind of an intellect underneath the creepy obsession with our host. But hey, you get to rant about people you hate, and that's what counts, right?

Posted by Elizabeth:To pose the question whether it would be better for the country is Mr. Whittington dies is...words fail me. And to presume that Democrats are hoping for that outcome is as indescribable. Do rightwing partisans have no limits? Disgusting.

Posted by Blackshire:In some regards yes, it would be better for the country. A manslaughter charge would guarantee that his days of destroying the amaerican dream of so many would be oover. Funny though, after 5 draft deferments and sending hundreds of thousand of soldiers to war, Cheney finally gets to know what it feels like to shoot somebody.

Perhaps the question wasn't so far fetched.

I think it was intended to goad irrational people like Blackshire and not intended for rational people like you, Elizabeth.

In the absence of any pressing news these days -- other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times

Number 7 1/2 shot weigh about 1.25 grains each and are less than 0.01" in diameter. Number 8 shot are smaller and lighter. There was an incident where a man was shot in the heart with a 40-grain .22 bullet and the surgeons couldn't find it, so they closed him up. Showed up in an artery near his knee some time later. Of course these shot will migrate. Given time the body will encase them in a cyst, and in many cases they will gradually work their way out through the skin.

What dismays me the most about this is that Mrs Quxxo has completely missed the real story. What is the NRA's largest shooting range? The Whittington Center, in the neighboring state of New Mexico. What was the name of the man Cheney shot? Whittington. Mere coincidence? I think not. Mark my words: the Repubs will be blasting their traditional gun-nut allies as the election nears and loosing a horde of lead-witted operatives throughout the body politic. Another of their knavish tricks.

Please, please - this is all part of the democratic/MSM master plan to win support in the red states, by demonstrating their depth of knowledge in firearms and hunting, and their calm, reasoned, sense of proportion.

If they think this will help their election chances, please, may they continue to think so.

If you can reclaim "troubling" for the world of rational discourse, you'll have done a fine thing.

Elizabeth -

Do rightwing partisans have no limits? Disgusting.

Very good! But you need to twist the handkerchief a little more, and try to put more of a quaver on "limits". Ready? Okay! Lights... action...

But seriously, I get really tired of this "how dare you doubt my moral superiority" act from the left. It tends to support the theory that people on the left are often narcissistic lightweights, more interested in striking dramatic poses than in engaging with reality. Can you name exceptions? Counterexamples? Mirror images on the right? A diminution of the effect in proximity to the political center? Sure, I don't doubt it for a moment. But the wing most populated by "youthful idealists" is, necessarily, going to capture the lion's share of the narcissistic boobs.

Jen Bradford -

This also doesn't call Cheney's judgment into question in the same way Clinton's choices did.

I can see the "pattern vs. isolated incident" thing, but really... it's entirely fair to ask what the hell kind of an idiot would have let this happen. No doubt it can happen to people who are as careful as they ought to be, but it's a lot more likely to happen to people who aren't.

People like quxxo are just howling at the moon as usual, but there's plenty of legitimate heat that Cheney really ought to be taking over this.

There might be a completely innocent explaination for why he shot another man in the face and didn't tell anybody about it.

More realistically, he was drunk when he pulled the trigger and needed the time to sober up. Or, perhaps, he was too busy ordering the torture of detainees and leaking classified information for political reasons to call the police. Either way, its not good.

I disagree with the notion that this isn't something for which he can be blackmailed, and I disagree with the notion that he'll be able to go back to governing as per usual. One of the fundamental rules of public relations if the story isn't as bad as it appears, you get it out as soon as possible on your terms. If the story is worse than it appears, you try to keep the lid on it. They tried to keep the lid on this one. That's why I'm not convinced that this is all so harmless. If Cheney thinks that going on Brit Hume's program -- the one program on which he is GUARANTEED not to face any difficult questions, a program that facilitates the policies of this administration - is going to quiet his critics, then he is sorely mistaken.

Terry,You know damn well that nothing short of impeaching President Bush will quiet the critics of Dick Cheney on this matter or any other matter relating to the Bush administration. So quit the disingenuous carping already and start filing articles of impeachment.

There might be a completely innocent explaination for why he shot another man in the face and didn't tell anybody about it.

I don't think there's much mysterious here. He shot the man on Saturday, and probably spent the next while helping get the man to the ICU. It was disclosed Sunday, by the property owner. Frankly, we're talking about waiting one night to talk to the press. 18 hours. On a weekend. On a matter not really of great public import.

This is not like Iran successfully detonating a nuclear weapon or anything.

Possibly Cheney should have sent an underling to the press on Saturday, but I don't think this is really problematic. I suspect the real issue here is not that he did not tell immediately, or even that he did not tell, but that someone else outside of the administration told first. There would have been a stink about this no matter what (because Cheney shooting a man in the face is comedy gold) but the hook for the stink is that he wasn't the one to disclose.

As far as strategic public relations considerations go, I think it's entirely credible that Cheney doesn't care a fig for such considerations, and simply doesn't think of them. I have never heard a positive story about Cheney's personal life. In fact, other than Kerry bleating about his lesbian daughter during the election, I have never read a story involving Cheney's personal life. And his people aren't too good at spinning either, because I can't recall any pushback against all the other stories about Cheney's secretive meetings with the bogeyman Big Oil and whatnot -- they just ignored those stories, and assumed they'd go away. Which they did.

"...it's entirely fair to ask what the hell kind of an idiot would have let this happen...."

It is a fair question.. but ask yourself... Have you ever gone through a red light or a stop sign... accidentally. Everyone has. Are we all idiots or just fortunate that no one was coming from the other direction.

You can call Cheney an idiot for the accident. That is fair. But, you are an idiot too.

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 27) -- The same day Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention, newly released documents suggest she was behind the 30-hour delay in releasing late White House counsel Vincent Foster's suicide note to authorities.

How the White House handled Foster's 1993 death, and the possibility that administration officials improperly removed documents from his office or impeded an official search of it, has been the subject of intense scrutiny by congressional Republicans and the media.

The newly released memo, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty as saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told" about Foster's note.

According to the document, Mrs. Clinton "said they should have a coherent position and should have decided what to do before they told the president."

That contradicts sworn testimony to the Senate Whitewater Committee from Clinton staffers that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note.

You can call Cheney an idiot for the accident. That is fair. But, you are an idiot too.

Heh. Fair enough. But I didn't say that cautious people don't screw up; I said that people who screw up are less likely to be cautious than those who don't. You do make your own luck to a considerable degree.

You people are just making up stuff and then arguing against what you made up. Please show me who in the mainstream media has made it a big point that Cheney needs to apologize to them, or to the general public. You say this like it's a fact, then go to great lengths to dispute it. It's like you're having a conversation with yourselves.

The Vice President of the United States shot a man in the face, and you try to pass it off like it's not important, and nobody's business. Please.

And suggesting that they're jealous because the Texas media got the story first? Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

There are serious questions involved, and just about everyone except partisan bloggers agree that the incident was terribly mishandled. But every time the press asks a question, they get lied to. Are you suggesting the role of the press is to ask a question, and when they're told an obvious lie, to just accept it so they won't look like they're hounding poor Scott McClellan?

There is a question about drinking, and asking the question doesn't mean you're making the accusation. The police were turned away when they came to question Cheney, yet declared the next day that no alcohol was involved. How could they possibly know?

But we're not supposed to speculate about alcohol, while many of you feel free to speculate how Democrats want Whittington to die. Hey, we're not the ones who shot him.

This apology business is really transparent. Keep saying the controversy is all about Cheney apologizing, sao when he goes on with Britt Hume and apologizes, you can declare "mission accomplished." Thus has nothing to do with Cheney apologizing, and everything to do with basic accountability.

And I saw clips of Cheney with Britt Hume. Somehow in the course of his apologizing he didn't see that it was necessary to apologize for having his spokespeople blame the victim. What a stand up guy.

He claims that Ms. Armstrong should be the one to call the press because she was an eyewitness and a hunting "expert." So she calls the press and gets virtually the entire story wrong. Listen to Cheney talking about the guy being covered with blood, with only one eye open, and unresponsive when Cheney spoke to him. Then compare it to her story that Whittington was laughing and joking, that he was more stunned than anything else, and that everyone gets "peppered" like that once in a while. Do you guys even care when you're lied to anymore, or are you just so happy to have a Republican in the White House that you can rationalize away anything?

Jen Bradford says 1. "Cheney's hunting accident isn't personal secret which makes him vulnerable to blackmail or about which he has lied under oath."

That is hardly a difference worth discussing. The only reason it isn't a secret is because Cheney shot a 78 year old man in the face with a shotgun. The man was taken to intensive care. How was that to be kept secret, despite the cooperation of George Bush and the rest of his cronies at the White House.

2. "This also doesn't call Cheney's judgment into question in the same way Clinton's choices did. Even if it was an avoidable accident (as the hunting "experts" would have us believe), it was a split-second decision. Not exactly a "pattern of behavior"."

I am glad that Cheney does not have a pattern of behavior consisting of shooting 78 year old men in the face with a shotgun. Once seems like plenty. On the other hand, it certainly is consistent with his patterns of paranoid secrecy and willingness to shoot first and ask questions later.

On the other hand, it certainly is consistent with his patterns of paranoid secrecy and willingness to shoot first and ask questions later.

Not talking to the press is not paranoid secrecy. I also think it's difficult to draw more than the most feeble of analogies between one's hunting behaviour and one's policy decisionmaking. Otherwise, what would we think of Clinton -- that he has poor impulse control? The rap against him is that he attempted to restrict our freedom of speech, abused his authority as CinC to attack other countries without Congressional authorisation, dishonored the office of President by using it to pick up chicks, and (now) fiddled while intellects cool and unsympathetic regarded our lands with envious eyes and slowly but surely drew their plans against us. Not that he was a ninny taken with whatever the latest new thing in policy was.

There are lots of people who think a man's behaviour in sport tells you loads about his behaviour at his business. Golf is a popular choice in this regard. I think these people are daft.

ChrisO, thanks for the reality check, and don't expect any answers - addresing your questions would force them to admit their arguments are feeble the platform for the discussion (the media "demanding" Cheney apoloogize publically) is bogus.

For the sake of argument, let's concede that your Cheney conspiracy theory is true. Who gives a shit?

You think Bu$hco are idiot, evil geniuses intent on enriching themselves and their friends, and starting wars for profit, and to feel macho, and destroying the enviroment and civil liberties. And they're racist. We get it.

Fitzmas is not coming. Nothing will come of this Cheney thing. The war rages. It will continue to rage. Iraq? In ten years we're going to think of Iraq as the good old days. Get a program, prepare to be in charge. Get over Bu$hco. They're going to serve out their term and then what? The war is real. I know you don't believe that. I fear what it will take to make you believe.